Better Playwright MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'activate' implies a mutation, but doesn't specify if this changes page state, requires permissions, has side effects, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence '激活指定的页面' that directly states the action. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be more informative. There's no wasted text, making it appropriately concise for its limited content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation action with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'activate' entails, the expected outcome, error conditions, or how it relates to sibling tools. For a tool that likely changes browser/page state, more context is needed to guide effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'pageId' documented as '页面ID' (page ID). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description '激活指定的页面' (Activate the specified page) provides a basic verb+resource combination, indicating it performs an activation action on a page. However, it's vague about what 'activate' means operationally and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'createPage' or 'browserNavigate', which also involve page manipulation. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'createPage', 'browserNavigate', and 'listPages', the description doesn't clarify if 'activate' is for switching focus, reloading, or another purpose, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves usage context ambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.